Holt v. State

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,619

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STANTON S. HOLT,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Geary District Court; RYAN W. ROSAUER, judge. Opinion filed December 13, 2019.
Affirmed.

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

Krista Blaisdell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON, P.J., BRUNS, J., and BURGESS, S.J.

PER CURIAM: Since Stanton Shane Holt's convictions were affirmed in 1996, he
has sought multiple avenues of relief, including several motions for writs of habeas
corpus under K.S.A. 60-1507. In 2018, the district court summarily dismissed Holt's
eighth such motion as being conclusory and successive. Holt now appeals that dismissal,
arguing that he established his right to an evidentiary hearing on the claim. We affirm.




2


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF
HOLT'S PREVIOUS POSTCONVICTION CHALLENGES

In 1994, a jury convicted Holt of over 60 offenses, including two counts of first-
degree murder. The district court ordered Holt to serve two consecutive life sentences
plus 123 to 355 years in prison. Holt appealed his sentence, asserting that there was
insufficient evidence to convict him, as well as, jury instruction errors, and double
jeopardy violations. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. State v. Holt,
260 Kan. 33, 34-45, 907 P.2d 1332 (1996) (Holt I).

In the 23 years since his convictions were affirmed, Holt has pursued multiple
avenues of relief from his convictions and sentence: Holt v. State, No. 81,489,
unpublished opinion filed January 29, 1999 (K.S.A. 60-1507 motion) (Holt II); Holt v.
State, No. 89,273, 2003 WL 22990148 (Kan. App. 2003) (unpublished opinion) (K.S.A.
60-1507 motion) (Holt III); Holt v. State, No. 96,270, 2007 WL 1413131 (Kan. App.
2007) (unpublished opinion) (K.S.A. 60-1507 motion) (Holt IV); State v. Holt, No.
96,169, 2007 WL 1309615 (Kan. App. 2007) (unpublished opinion), (K.S.A. 60-1507
motion and motion to correct illegal sentence) (Holt V); Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491, 232
P.2d 848 (2010) (K.S.A. 60-1507 motion) (Holt VI); State v. Holt, 298 Kan. 469, 313
P.3d 826 (2013) (motion for new trial construed as K.S.A. 60-1507 motion) (Holt VII);
Holt v. State, No. 113,196, 2016 WL 197720 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion)
(K.S.A. 60-1507 motion) (Holt VIII).

As of 2013, Holt had also filed two habeas corpus motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
in United States District Court for the District of Kansas. See Holt VII, 298 Kan. at 470.

On September 25, 2017, Holt filed a pro se "Motion Requiring Relief From
Malicious Prosecution" pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. In his motion, Holt alleged that all
3

motions filed since 1997 were not successive because he never received a hearing on the
merits. Holt filed an amendment to his motion five months later in which he argued about
the sufficiency of evidence, maintained that the jury was erroneously instructed at his
trial, and claimed prosecutorial error. The district court found Holt's motion lacked
factual support and was conclusory. The district court also found that the claims were
successive because the same issues had been summarily denied by the district court and
affirmed by this court.

DISCUSSION

When the district court summarily dismisses a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, this court
conducts a de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case
conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief. Beauclair v. State, 308
Kan. 284, 293, 419 P.3d 1180 (2018).

To be entitled to relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, the movant must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence either: (1) "the judgment was rendered without
jurisdiction"; (2) "the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to
collateral attack"; or (3) "there has been such a denial or infringement of the
constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral
attack." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(g) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R.
228).

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, a
movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet
this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory. The movant must set
forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from
the record. If such a showing is made, the court is required to hold a hearing unless the
motion is a "'second'" or "'successive'" motion seeking similar relief. Sola-Morales v.
4

State, 300 Kan. 875, 881, 335 P.3d 1162 (2014) (quoting Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271,
274, 252 P.3d 573 [2011]).

Under K.S.A. 60-1507(c), a sentencing court is not required to entertain a second
or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. Beauclair, 308
Kan. at 304. "A movant in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is presumed to have listed all
grounds for relief, and a subsequent motion need not be considered in the absence of a
showing of circumstances justifying the original failure to list a ground." State v. Trotter,
296 Kan. 898, Syl. ¶ 2, 295 P.3d 1039 (2013).

To avoid a dismissal of a second or successive K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the
movant bears the burden of establishing exceptional circumstances. Beauclair, 308 Kan.
at 304. Exceptional circumstances are unusual events or intervening changes in the law
that prevented the defendant from raising the issue in a prior K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. 308
Kan. at 304. Exceptional circumstances can include ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. See 308 Kan. at 304; Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076, 1087, 219 P.3d 1212
(2009).

This is Holt's eighth K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Clearly, it is successive. However, in
his motion, Holt did not try to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the
consideration of his successive motion. Rather, Holt argued that his motion was not
successive because he never received an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective
assistance of his counsel appointed to assist him with his first K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. On
appeal, Holt concedes that he did not "explicitly acknowledge" the exceptional
circumstances requirement, but he suggests that his use of Kansas caselaw regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel was sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances.
This argument is not persuasive. Although a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
could be an exceptional circumstance, it has been determined that this claim was
successive because it could have been raised in any of the previous motions filed after
5

Holt's initial K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. See Holt VIII, 2016 WL 197720, at *1. The district
court did not err in finding Holt's claims to be successive.

Holt's motion was also filed more than 20 years after his convictions became final,
which is well outside the one-year time limitation a defendant has to file a motion under
K.S.A. 60-1507(a). K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(f)(1). The district court may extend the
one-year time limitation for bringing an action under K.S.A. 60-1507(f)(1) only to
prevent a manifest injustice. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(f)(2). A defendant who files a
motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 outside the one-year time limitation in K.S.A. 60-1507(f)
and fails to affirmatively assert manifest injustice is procedurally barred from
maintaining the action. Trotter, 296 Kan. at 905.

In this current motion, Holt argued that manifest injustice was created when the
trial court abused its discretion and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. Holt's
motion was filed after the 2016 Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 60-1507(f)(2) to
include a definition of manifest injustice and consideration of his motion is controlled by
this statutory definition. See Hayes v. State, 307 Kan. 9, 12, 404 P.3d 676 (2017). The
plain language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(f)(2) limits a court's consideration of what
constitutes a manifest injustice to "(1) a movant's reasons for the failure to timely file the
motion and (2) a movant's claims of actual innocence." 307 Kan. at 14.

Holt does not give any reason for his failure to timely file his motion and submits
no claim of actual innocence. Holt, again, only submits conclusory allegations against his
appointed K.S.A. 60-1507 counsel in arguing that manifest injustice exists. Holt's current
motion was filed over 20 years after the one-year deadline passed, and he has failed to
establish any legal basis to extend this time limitation.

In addition to Holt's motion being successive and filed after the one-year time
limitation, it is also conclusory. The motion does not set forth an evidentiary basis to
6

support Holt's contentions, nor is one evident from the record. The district court did not
err in dismissing Holt's motion for being conclusory.

Holt had the burden to establish his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing and the
burden to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and manifest injustice necessary to
justify consideration of his eighth K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. See Beauclair, 308 Kan. at
304. Given Holt's failure to do so, the district court did not err by summarily dismissing
the motion.

Affirmed.